CIT v. Thiruvengadam Investments (P.) Ltd.

320 ITR 345High Court2010#6172 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147 Section 148 Section 2(14)Section 250 Section 28 Section 50C

Judgments citing CIT v. Thiruvengadam Investments (P.) Ltd.

UDAYKUMAR VYAS,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 1 (5), BSNL RTTC BUILDING

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 262/NAG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna21 Apr 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Royudaykumar Vyas, Ito, Ward – 1(5) Flat No. 402, Lepresting Vs Nagpur Apartment, Plot No. 105- 106, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur. Pan : Aarpv 4578 K Assessee Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sameer Wazalwar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT DR

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 50C

…im that the land formed part of business inventory held in the course of land development activity. 8. We further note that the present issue is no more res integra. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Thiruvengadam Investments (P) Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 345 (Mad) has categorically held that “where the property is treated as a business asset, the provisions of section 50C of the Act have no application, 11 as the said provision is confined only to capital assets”. The said view has been consistently followed by various Benches of the Tribunal, including the Mumbai Bench in Inderlok Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v…

UDAYKUMAR VYAS,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 1 (5), BSNL RTTC BUILDING

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 262/NAG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Apr 2026AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sameer Wazalwar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT DR

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 50C

UDAYKUMAR VYAS,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 1 (5), BSNL RTTC BUILDING

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 262/NAG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Apr 2026AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sameer Wazalwar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT DR

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 50C

MAHESHWARI MEGAVENTURES LIMITED ,HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-16(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1291/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad03 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 50C

…the proceedings is that section 50C of the Act has no application to the property in question in this appeal. Learned AR placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Thiruvengadam Investments Pvt. Page 7 of 12 Ltd., 320 ITR 345 (Mad) and also in the case of Inderlok Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ito 122 TTJ 145; whereas learned DR placed reliance on the decisions reported in the cases of CIT vs. Carlton Hotel (P.) Ltd., [2017] 88 taxmann.com 257 (Allahabad) and Saras Metals (P.) Ltd., vs. CIT [2018] 99 taxmann.com 405 (Delhi). 15. According to the assessee, prior to its convers…

ANIL KUMAR PAIK ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-8(1), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 492/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 492/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anil Kumar Paik Acit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates Vs 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor Suite No. 203 Off Hare Street Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aflpp6567R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 15/03/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Ld. Commissioner, Of Income Tax (Appeals)- N.F.A.C. Acted Unlawfully In Impliedly Sustaining; The Purported Addition Of Rs. 1,67.44,907/- Made The Ld. Assistant Commissioner, Of Income Tax, Circle 8(1) Kolkata By Invoking The Mischief U/S. 43Ca Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Without Satisfying The Parameters Thereof & The Adverse Conclusion Reached On That Behalf In Violation Of The Statutory Prescription Is Completely Unfounded, Unjustified & Untenable In Law. 2. For That The Specious Approach Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-N.F.A,C. Of Misreading Evidence, Considering Improper Facts

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. D/R

Section 145Section 250Section 43C

…stock in trade is also a view taken by Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ken Construction and Colonizers (P.) Ltd.(2012) 208 Taxman 478/20 taxman.com 381. Similarly the Madras High Court in CIT v. Thiruvengadam Investments (P.) Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 345 has also held that section 50C of the Act cannot be invoked to arrive at full consideration of sale of business asset. We see no reason not to adopt the views of the above two High Courts to the present facts." (Emphasis Supplied) 11 I.T.A. No. 492/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anil Kumar Paik Therefore, section 43CA cannot be made applicabl…

ANIL KUMAR PAIK,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 468/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 468/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Anil Kumar Paik Acit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates Vs 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor Suite No. 203 Off Hare Street Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aflpp6567R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/09/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 15/03/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R

Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 43CSection 44A

…stock in trade is also a view taken by Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ken Construction and Colonizers (P.) Ltd.(2012) 208 Taxman 478/20 taxman.com 381. Similarly the Madras High Court in CIT v. Thiruvengadam Investments (P.) Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 345 has also held that section 50C of the Act cannot be invoked to arrive at full consideration of sale of business asset. We see no reason not to adopt the views of the above two High Courts to the present facts." (Emphasis Supplied) Therefore, section 43CA cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case. By the plain language of this I.T…

MANGALMURTI REALTORS,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 5 PANVEL, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 3787/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3787/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Mangalmurti Realtors बिधम/ Ito-Ward-5, Panvel 610, Piramal Chambers, Shop No.10, Plot No.1 & 10, Vs. Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012. Sector-31, Kamothe, Navi Mumbai. Ita. No. 4400/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Ito-Ward-5, Panvel बिधम/ M/S. Mangalmurti Realtors 610, Piramal Chambers, Shop No.10, Plot No.1 & 10, Vs. Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012. Sector-31, Kamothe, Navi Mumbai. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aapfm3709F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Rishabh Mehta (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Padamapani Bora (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08/11/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 20.03.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. Ita. No.3787/M/17 4400/M/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 20.03.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh Mehta (AR)For Respondent: Shri Padamapani Bora (DR)

Section 143(2)Section 43C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3787/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/s. Mangalmurti Realtors बिधम/ ITO-Ward-5, Panvel 610, Piramal Chambers, Shop No.10, Plot No.1 & 10, Vs. Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012. Sector-31, Kamothe, Navi Mumbai. ITA. No. 4400/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) ITO-Ward-5, Panvel बिधम/ M/s. Mangalmurti Realtors 610, Piramal Chambers, Shop No.10, Plot No.1 & 10, Vs. Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012. Sector-31, Kamothe, Navi Mumbai. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR…

KUTCH DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION-HOPE 1000,MUMBAI vs. C.I.T.13, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee i

ITA 2629/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm M/S Kutch Development Vs. Cit, City-13, Mumbai Organisation-Hope 1000 309/310, Veena Chambers, Dana Bunder, Masjid Bunder, Mumbai-400009 Pan No.Aaaak 0225 E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & M/S Kutch Development Vs. Ito13(2)(4), Mumbai Organisation-Hope 1000 309/310, Veena Chambers, Dana Bunder, Masjid Bunder, Mumbai-400009 Pan No. Aaaak 0225 E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Vipul Joshi, Ar Revenue By Shri B. Srinivas, Citdr Mrs. Jathilakshmi Nayak, Dr Date Of Hearing 10/05/2019 Date Of Pronouncement 29/05/2019

Section 143(3)Section 25Section 263

…lternative argument of ld. AR and held that provisions of Section 50C cannot be made applicable to business asset. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon‟ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs.Thiruvengadam Investments (P.) Ltd., (2010) 320 ITR 345 (Madras). 13. We also find that the subject mentioned land at Panvel is situated beyond 8 kms. from the municipal limits, which fact is not disputed by the ld.CIT. Hence, even if the sale of agriculture land is to be subjected to tax under the head capital gains, we find that the subject mentioned land is exempt u/s.2(14) of the Act. Hence, the s…

NARENDRA KUMAR SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAQL CIRCLE-15, , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 12/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Narendra Kumar Singh, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of C/O- Vivek Bansal, 2Nd Floor, Income Tax, B-3/4, Safdarjung Enclave, Central Circle-15, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Akmps8087M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By S/Shri I.P. Bansal & Vivek Bansal, Advocates Respondent By Smt. Rinku Singh, Sr.Dr

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 50CSection 50C(1)Section 50C(2)(a)

…ion 50C are not applicable. In support of the contention, he relied on the following judicial pronouncement: ❖ CIT vs Glowshine Builders & Developers (P.) Ltd [2018] 405 ITR 540 (Bombay) Para 7 upto para 11. ❖ CIT vs Thiruvengadam Investments (P.) Ltd [2010] 320 ITR 345 (Madras) Para 7 ❖ CIT vs Neelkamal Realtors & Erectors India (P.) Ltd. [2017] 246 Taxman 274 (Bombay) para 3(f) 5 3.5 Further, the learned counsel submitted that without prejudice that the income should have been taxed under the head “profit and gains of the business”, as an alternative, prior to invoking section 50C of the Act, the Assessing Of…

SHRI DR. LIYAKAT ALI KAPADIYA,UJJAIN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 (1), UJJAIN

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 668/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borada.Y. 2013-14

Section 50CSection 50C(3)

…e instant case the sale of the flats was treated as the business income and not as a capital gain, the provision of section 5OC was not applicable." Same view has been taken by the High Court of Madras in the case of CIT vs. Thiruvengadam Investment (P.) Ltd. 320 ITR 345. In the case of ITO vs. United Marine Academy following observation have been made. "The main issue for consideration in the instant case was as to whether in a case where capital gain arising from the transfer of depreciable asset is computed as per the special provisions contained in section 50, the provisions of section 50C can be applied so a…

M/S MALVIKA AGROTECH PVT. LTD.,DHAR vs. THE ITO-2(2), INDORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes”

ITA 358/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Malvika Agrotech Ito, 2(2), Pvt. Ltd, Indore Plot No.185, Sector-1, Pithampur, Dhar (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aaccm6451G Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri C.P. Rawka,Ca Date Of Hearing 10.09.2018 Date Of 19.9.2018 Pronouncement

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 50CSection 68

…Malvika Agrotech Pvt. Ltd आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s Malvika Agrotech ITO, 2(2), Pvt. Ltd, Indore Plot No.185, Sector-1, Pithampur, Dhar (Appellant) (Respondent ) PAN No.AACCM6451G Revenue by Shri P.K. Mitra, Sr. DR Assessee by Shri C.P. Rawka,CA Date of Hearing 10.09.2018 Date of 19.9.2018 Pronouncement O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, AM. This appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2009-10 is directed against the order of L…

ROMIEL SAMUEL,MUMBAI vs. ITO 18(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 437/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: Shri Hari Om Tulsian, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, DR

Section 143(3)Section 5O

…Aayakr ApIlaIya AiQakrNa “D” nyaayapIz maMuba[- mao. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI NK PRADHAN, AM Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 437/Mum/2016 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2009-10) Shri Romiel Samuel The Income Tax Officer, F-2/Karmatak Society, Mogul Ward 18(3)(3), Mumbai Vs. Lane, Mahim, Mumbai-400 016 (ApIlaaqaI- / Appellant) .. (p`%yaqaaI- / Respondent) PAN No. AAJPS1156Q Assessee by : Shri Hari Om Tulsian, AR Revenue by : Shri Ram Tiwari, DR Date of hearing: 03-05-2018 Date of pronouncement : 13-06-2018 AadoSa / O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SING…

NIRMAL B. CHAVDA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 74/RJT/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Namita Khurana, Sr. D.R

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 28Section 50C

…dopting stamp duty valuation u/s 50C as the assessee has filed Return mentioning income from sale of property as business income and as per case law of Inderlok Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO [2009] 32 SOT 419(Mum.), CIT v. Thiruvengadam Investments Pvt. Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 345(Mad.) Section 50C is not applicable for calculating business income under section 28. 4. The Assessing Officer has erred in law by not giving enough opportunity to the assessee before passing Order and not follows the principle of natural justice. 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax-2 has wrongly enhanced income of assessee by Rs.1,45,639.” 3. In…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SURAJKUND PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3421/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2008-09

Section 50C

…50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act) is not applicable to the 3 ITA No.3421/Del./2011 Surajkund Properties Pvt. Ltd. facts of the present appeal. Reliance was placed upon the decision in the case of CIT vs Thiruvengadam Investments Pvt Ltd 320 ITR 345 (Mad.) and CIT vs R. Sugantha Ravindran (2013) 352 ITR 488 (Chennai). 2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee is in the business of resorts, hotels, real estate, building and land developers. The assessee company sold two land properties i.e. one a…

MEMA ENGINEERS & CONTRCTORS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 6(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.2 of the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3253/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Mema Engineers & Ito 6(3)(3), Contractors Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai B Wing, G6, Navbharat Estate, Vs. Zakaria Bunder Road, Sewri (W), Mumbai – 400 015 Pan: Aaach 1383F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar, D.R

Section 50Section 50C

…e licensee of the land. When assessee has treated this land as business asset the provisions of section 50C is not applicable. The Ld. A.R. relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Thiruvengadam Investments Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 345 (Mad), decision of Mumbai Bench, ITAT in ITA No.8101/M/2011 in the case of Shavo Norgren (P) Ltd. and Hon’ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court judgment in the case of CIT vs. Neelkamal Realtors & Erectors India (P.) Ltd. (2017) 79 taxmann.com 238 (Bombay). The Ld. A.R. further submitted that the sale of revisionary right in leasehold land is not…

ITO, WD-41(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S DELTA CONSTRUCTION, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1424/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Apr 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh, I.T.A. No. 1424/Kol/2014 Assessment Year – 2009-10 I.T.O., Ward-41(2), Kolkata M/S. Delta Construction -Vs- 5D, Gopal Bose Lane Kolkata-700050 [Pan: Aaefd7122L] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 43CSection 50C

…he statute only w.e.f. 01.04.2014 and accordingly not applicable for assessment years prior to the same. In this regard, the Ld. CIT(A) placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Thiruvengadam Investments (P) Ltd. [320 ITR 345] (Madras) and deleted the addition made in the sum of Rs.37,97,502/- by the Ld. AO. Aggrieved the Revenue is in appeal before us on the following grounds: 1. On the facts and under the given circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition of Rs.37,97,502/- classifying it as having been made u/s 50C. 2. The Ld…

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. HANSA VISION INDIA PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 943/CHNY/2013[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Aug 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.943/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2001-02 M/S Hansa Vision India Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of (Formerly Tiruvengadam Investments Income Tax, V. Pvt. Ltd.), 605-606, Anna Salai, Company Circle Iii(2), South Indian Film Chamber Building, 2Nd Floor, Thousand Lights, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 006. Pan : Aabct 3770 E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCITFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate

…y and letting out the same on rent, the loss suffered by the assessee in the process of developing the land has to be allowed as revenue loss. Referring to the judgement of Madras High Court in the assessee's own case for assessment year 2004-05, reported in 320 ITR 345, the Ld. counsel submitted that when the assessee was in the business of property development, the property has to be treated as business asset and not as capital asset. Therefore, according to the Ld. counsel, the CIT(Appeals) has rightly allowed the claim of the assessee. 8. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused…

DATTATRAY N SAWANT HUF,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No 2360/Mum/2013 is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 2360/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Respondent: Shri B.S. Bist, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(47)Section 45(1)

…le in 2008 , the value is computed at Rs. 130.90 lacs. The ld. Counsel relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. R. Ponnammal, (1986) 54 CCH 0058(Mad.HC) and in the case of CIT v. M/s Thiruvengadam Investments Pvt. Ltd. [2010]320 ITR 345 (Mad.) . The ld. Counsel also submitted if Section 50C of the Act is invoked, then the value as per stamp duty authorities is higher and the issue can be set aside to the file of the AO for getting the property valued by DVO as stipulated u/s 50C(2) of the Act. The assessee also relied upon decision of ITAT, Agra in the case of Raj Kumari Agarwal…

ITO,WARD-9(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MID LAND PROJECTS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 505/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: : Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Prabhat Kumar Singh, FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Pinaki Mukherjee, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 50C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA Before : Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Judicial Member, and Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member ITA No. 505/Kol/2012 A.Y 2008-09 I.T.O Ward 9(1), Kolkata Vs. M/s. Mid Land Projects Ltd PAN: AADCM 4353Q (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant/department: Shri Pinaki Mukherjee, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR For the Respondent/assessee: Shri Prabhat Kumar Singh, FCA, ld.AR Date of Hearing: 17-02-2016 Date of Pronouncement: 6-4-2016 ORDER SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM This appeal of the revenue arises out of the order of the Learned CIT(A), VIII, Kolkata in Appeal No. 1…